1. Contracts with public Companies.] Persons dealing with railway or other similar
companies should always bear in mind that such companies are essentially different
from an ordinary partnership or firm, for all purposes of contracts, and especially
in respect of evidence against them on legal trials; and should insist upon all con-
tracts with them being by deed under the seal of the company, or signed by direct-
ors, or otherwise executed in the manner prescribed by the act of Parliament
regulating the company-there is no safety or security for any one dealing with
such a body upon any other footing. The same observation also applies in respect
Williams v.
of any variation or alteration in a contract which has been made.
Chester, &c., Railway Co., 497.

2. The secretary of such a company has, of himself, no independent authority to bind
the company by letters or documents signed by him. Ib.

CONTRIBUTORY.

1. Preliminary Expenses.] In a case where shares have been applied for in a pro-
jected company, but no payment of the deposit made in accordance with the requi-
sition for that purpose contained in the letter informing the applicant of the allot-
ment of shares to him:

Held, that such applicant is not a contributory towards preliminary expenses. Coop-
er's Case, 1.

2. Deposit.] So, in a case where the deposit has been paid by a party applying for
shares, but no signature by the applicant to the subscriber's agreement or parlia-
mentary contract:
Held, that such payment did not make the party a contributory; that this was the law

-

Common Law, Admiralty, &c.

prior to the stat. 1 & 2 Vict. c. 110, and the provisions of that statute have made
no alteration in the law in those respects. Ib.

3. Preliminary Expenses.] A person who has accepted shares in a projected com-
pany, whether he has paid the deposit on them or not, is not responsible or liable
for the expenses which were incurred in the process of the formation of such com-
pany. Thompson's Case, 8.

CONVICTION.

1. Imprisonment.] A conviction under the 1 & 2 Will. 4, c. 32, s. 3, (the Game Act,)
adjudged the defendant to pay a fine of 5s., "to be paid and applied according to
law," and in default of payment to be imprisoned for two months:

Held, that the justices had no jurisdiction to order the defendant to be imprisoned, as
the imprisonment was conditional on the non-payment of the penalty, and they had
not, by the conviction, directed the manner in which the penalty should be paid, as
required by sect. 21 of the 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 20. Hyde, ex parte, 368.

2. Certiorari.] Held, also, that the conviction might be removed by certiorari, not-
withstanding the 45th section of the 1.& 2 Will. 4, c. 32. Ib.

1. Certificate for Costs.] The court, or a judge at chambers, has the power of certi-
fying to give costs, under the 13th section of the 13 & 14 Vict. c. 61, (the County
Courts Extension Act,) notwithstanding the power of certifying as a judge at nisi
prius to give costs, under the 12th section of that act, has, by an order of refer-
ence, been given to an arbitrator, who has failed to certify; the certificate under
the 13thr section being one which a judge at chambers or the court has power to
give, and different from that which a judge at nisi prius is empowered to give under
the 12th section. Sharp v. Eveleigh, 467.

2. County Courts Extension Act.] Where a plaintiff in an action of contract, after
judgment on demurrer, recovers less than 20. on an inquisition of damages, he is
deprived of his costs by the 13 & 14 Vict. c. 61, s. 11, the case not coming under
the exception as to judgment by default. Prew v. Squire, 391.

3. London County Court Act.] The London Small Debts Act, 10 & 11 Vict. c. 71,
s. 113, deprives the plaintiff of costs where he does not recover more than 201.:
Held, not to deprive the plaintiff of costs where the verdict is reduced to a sum under
201. only by a tender, but which, with the amount tendered, is not less than 201.
Cross v. Seaman, 399.

4. Taxation Several Defendants.]

--

Where there are several defendants who defend
separately and obtain a verdict generally, the costs of all need not be taxed at the
same time. Brueford v. Griffin, 474.

5. 4 Ann. c. 16, s. 5— Plaintiff's right to Costs when his Declaration is bad.] To a
declaration in assumpsit the defendant pleaded several pleas, upon which issues
were joined, and two pleas to which the plaintiff demurred; all the issues of fact
were found for the plaintiff, but he afterwards failed on the demurrers, upon the
ground that the declaration was insufficient:-

Held, that the plaintiff was not entitled, under the 4 Ann. c. 16, to the costs of the
issues found for him. Partridge v. Gardner, 476.

6. Case reserving Points on both Sides.] Where, upon a case reserved at the sessions,
points are raised in favor of both sides, and this court confirms the order of ses-
sions and decides against all the points raised, neither party is entitled to costs
under 5 Geo. 2, c. 19, s. 2. Regina v. Southampton Dock Company, 290.

7. Costs of Appeal.] By a rule of practice of a Court of Quarter Sessions it was
ordered that 40s. only should in future be allowed in cases of appeals. Upon an

Common Law, Admiralty, &c.

appeal against an order of removal, which was quashed, the Court of Quarter Ses-
sions made an order that the appeal should be quashed on payment of 40s. costs,
without further considering the particular merits of the case. On application, this
court granted a mandamus to the justices to compel them to consider and award to
the appellants such reasonable costs as they in their discretion should think fit, un-
der the particular circumstances. Regina v. Justices of Glamorganshire, 357.
8. On Appeal.] Where, upon an appeal to the Quarter Sessions, a case is stated for
the opinion of a superior court, under the 12 & 13 Vict. c. 45, s. 11, the practice is
to give costs as between party and party. Clarendon v. Rector, &c., of St. James, 393.
9. Certificate for.] The court will not lay down any rule to regulate the discretionary
power as to certifying for costs, which is given by the 13 & 14 Vict. c. 61, s. 12,
to the judge who tries the cause. Palmer v. Richards, 535.
10. Matrimonial Suit.] The guardian of a minor, a married woman, in a matrimonial
suit, is bound to exercise due caution before instituting proceedings against the
husband, and is not exempt from liability to condemnation in costs if the suit proves
a mere fishing suit. But the wife, on coming of age and adopting such suit, will
not be condemned in the costs incurred by her. Brown v. Brown, (Ec.) 567.
11. Of Inquiry to settle Compensation.] The provisions of the 38th section of the
Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, (8 & 9 Vict. c. 18,) requiring the company
to give notice of the amount of compensation they are willing to pay the claimant
before they summon a jury to settle the same, and also the provisions of the 51st
section, which regulates by whom the costs of such inquiry are to be borne, apply
to cases where the company are desired by the claimant, under sect. 68, to issue
their warrant for summoning such jury. Therefore, where a jury has been sum-
moned in compliance with a notice from the claimant, under the 68th section, if
the verdict of the jury is for a greater sum than the sum previously offered by the
company, the claimant is entitled to his costs of such inquiry. Richardson v. South-
eastern Railway Co., 421.

See ASSIGNMENT, 2.

COUNCILLOR.

Voting Paper.] At the election of a town councillor, a candidate, whose place of
residence was "Newmarket Road," was described in the voting papers as of "Gon-
ville Place." "Gonville Place" was situated in a different ward from "Newmarket
Road," but had, until a few days previous to the election, been the residence of the
candidate :
Held, that that was not an inaccurate description of a place stated in a voting paper
which was cured by sect. 142 of the 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 76, which applies only to the
inaccurate description of a right place, not to the accurate description of a wrong
place. Regina v. Coward, 301.

COUNT.

A count for interest upon, and for the forbearance of, sums laid out for the defendant,
and at his request, and forborne at the defendant's request, is good, though it does
not state that the money was paid to the defendant's use, or forborne to the defend-
ant. Smith v. Hartley, 383.

COUNTY COURT.

Semble, the production of a certificate in bankruptcy granted to
obtaining of a judgment against him in a county court, is a
summons under the 98th section of stat. 9 & 10 Vict. c. 95.
347.

See APPEAL, 1. Costs, 1, 2, 9.

COURT OF QUARTER SESSIONS

See COSTS, 6, 7, 8.

CREW.

a defendant, after the
sufficient answer to a
Rackham v. Blowers,

Common Law, Admiralty, &c.

CROSS EXAMINATION.
See EVIDENCE, 12.

COVENANTS.

1. Lease - Condition precedent.] A lease contained numerous covenants on the part
of the lessees for payment of rent, &c., with a proviso for reëntry on breach of any
one of them; and also a proviso, that if the lessees should give notice to quit
eighteen calendar months before the end of the eighth year, then and in such case,
all arrears of rent being paid, and all the covenants and agreements on the part of
the lessees having been observed and performed, the lease, and every clause or
thing therein contained, should, at the expiration of the eighth year, be utterly
void, but nevertheless without prejudice to any claim or remedy which any of the
parties might then be entitled to for breach of any of the covenants:

Held, reversing the judgment of the Court of Exchequer, that performance of all the
covenants by the lessees was a condition precedent to their right to determine the
lease. Friar v. Grey, 480.

2. To stand seized.]

See DEED, 7. LANDLORD AND Tenant, 1, 2.

DAMAGES.

Measure of] In an action on the case by an execution creditor against the sheriff,
for the escape of his debtor, the measure of damages is the value of the custody
of the debtor at the moment of the escape; and no deduction ought to be made on
account of any thing that the creditor might have obtained by diligence in retaking
the debtor after the escape. Arden v. Goodacre, 436.

DEBTOR AND CREDITOR.
See FRAUD, 1, 2, 3.

DECLARATION.

See PLEADING, 3, 5, 11.

DEED.

1. Voluntary Conveyance - 27 Eliz. c. 4.] A deed executed by S., in contemplation of
marriage, without the knowledge of the future husband, by which S. gave herself
an estate for life in certain leaseholds, with remainder to R. M., a son by a former
marriage, and remainder over to an illegitimate son, is not avoided by the marriage
under the 27 Eliz. c. 4, the husband not taking as a purchaser. Doe d. Richards
v. Lewis, 400.

2. Quare, whether the deed would have been bad, if it had been found as a fact that
it was intended as a fraud upon the marital rights of the husband. Ib.

3. Search.] The deed was delivered to T., with instructions not to give it up to any
one but S. and R. M. together, and it was given up by T. to S. and R. M. many
years after. P. and B. were the trustees named in it. At S.'s death the deed was
not found on her premises, but no proper search in the repositories of the trustees
was proved:

Held, that the deed was intended to be operative, but that the search was insufficient
to let in secondary evidence. Ib.

4. Declarations.] Held, also, that declarations made by S., as to the contents of the
deed, were not admissible as cutting down her title. Ib.

5. Fraud.] Held, also, that a voluntary deed, not actually fraudulent, by which hus-
band and wife settled the wife's chattel interest on R. M., is not avoided, under the
27 Eliz. c. 4, by a mortgage made by the widow surviving her husband, — com-
menting on Burrel's Case, 6 Rep. 72. lb.

6. Construction of] Ejectment to recover two undivided third parts of an estate
called "Horsecroft." J. P. being seized in fee of Horsecroft, before his marriage
with M. C., executed an indenture of settlement, in 1770, whereby it was wit-
nessed that in consideration of an intended marriage between himself and M. C.,

Common Law, Admiralty, &c.

and of the conveyance and settlement by M. C. of the estate, money, &c., therein-
after mentioned, and of the benefit arising to J. P. by the marriage, and for settling
a jointure and maintenance for M. C. and her children, and for settling the free
estate called Horsecroft, belonging to J. P., he, the said J. P., granted, sold, &c.,
to trustees, and to their heirs, all that freehold estate and right of J. P. to the said
estate and other the premises intended to be released by M. Č. It was then further
witnessed that in consideration of the marriage and of the jointure, and for settling
the freehold estate, together with the other moneys, &c., J. P. bargained, sold, &c.,
to the trustees, in trust, for M. C., to the use of the first son of the said J. P. on
the body of the said M. C. lawfully begotten, and to the heirs male of the said son
lawfully begotten. J. P. had four children, John P., who died unmarried and intes-
tate, and three daughters. The two lessors of the plaintiff are the heirs at law
of two of the daughters, and the female defendant is the other daughter. J. P.,
in 1823, made his will as follows: "Also, I give Horsecroft, my estate, that I now
live in, to my son, John P., a lunatic." He then gave the residue of his estate to
his daughter, the defendant.

Held, dissentiente Platt, B., that the deed was inoperative; and by the whole court,
that the son, John P., took under the will an estate in fee in Horsecroft. Doe d.
Pottow v. Fricker, 443.

7. Covenant to stand seized.] R. S. being seized in fee of a house and land, duly
executed a deed, as follows: "I, R. S., of, &c., for and in consideration of the love
which I do bear towards my son, W. S., of, &c., have given and granted, and by
these presents do freely give and grant, unto the said W. S., all and singular my
dwelling-house, &c., and that the said W. S. is to take possession of the same at
Michaelmas day next. I have herewith delivered him, the said W. S., all and sin-
gular the dwelling-house and premises absolutely at Michaelmas day next, without
any further condition respecting the property:

Held, that this deed operated as a covenant by R. S. to stand seized to the use of W.
S. Doe d. Starling v. Prince, 428.

And semble, per Maule J., that it operated as a

8. Effect of the Word "Grant."]
grant of the immediate freehold. Ib.

Mortgage - Legal Estate.] The following devise, "I leave my wife, R. H., to
receive all moneys upon mortgages," gives the wife the legal estate in the mort-
gaged premises. Doe d. Guest v. Bennett, 536.

DISCHARGE.
See INSOLVENT.

DISTRESS.

See ASSUMPSIT, 3. LANDLORD and Tenant, 4.